Business leaders can’t hide from AML

Business leaders can’t hide from AML – Anti-Money Laundering – the sector that has grown exponentially as the threats from bad actors rise worldwide.

Like it or not, corporate leaders do have a role to play in stopping money laundering. They may not be experts in the subject, they may not even be familiar with it, but these days, it doesn’t matter in the eyes of regulators. If you help a criminal move illicit gains, even without knowing it, you could easily be in serious trouble.

Criminals always need ways to make their dirty profits appear genuine, and for that, they need channels to “clean” them. This usually involves putting the money through one or multiple business transactions so that, on official accounts, it looks as though it came from a legitimate source.  

Criminals often use normal businesses to do this. Most of them weren’t founded with the intention of laundering money – indeed, most will not even think of the possibility that their operations could be used for such purposes, but that’s what often makes them such easy targets. 

While it’s common for criminals to use companies that offer financial services for laundering, it’s not exclusive; any company’s accounts can be used for dirty money.

For decades, the rulebook for AML was predictable, based on tick-box exercises that rarely changed. If a criminal got money through a company, but that company ticked those predictable boxes, the attitude was to simply shrug it off with a simple “oh, well,’ and move on. 

Those days are over. 

Whether you agree with it or not, regulators are now gunning for corporate leaders as part of their AML battle. In their eyes, boards and C-suites always have a responsibility to ask questions about red flags. If they don’t, and money laundering activity is uncovered, the leaders are as guilty as the criminals. 

It doesn’t matter if the corporate leaders are in on the money laundering, or as honest as they come. 

Take a recent example from June 2026 in Australia: Former Star Entertainment CEO Matt Bekier was banned from managing companies for six years and slapped with a A$700,000 (US$495,000) personal fine for failing to address severe money laundering risks at his company, which primarily deals with operating casinos. The court found that Star had multiple AML compliance issues with junket operators, but that Bekier ignored them. 

The example is one of many. Gambling is a common industry to fall victim to money laundering, and Australia is a hotbed for such activity. The problem is: many of these hotbeds exist worldwide, and regulators are only too happy to make examples of leaders who, in their eyes, have let their guard down. 

Nowadays, that means failing to implement and monitor an effective AML program is a direct path to personal financial ruin, industry bans, and prison time.

Here are five jurisdictions leading the charge when it comes to aggressive AML regulations 

1. United States: The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA) significantly fortified the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). Crucially, AMLA targets executives by allowing prosecutors to seek massive personal fines and pursue criminal prison sentences for any AML compliance failures. If fines aren’t on the table, the regulators also have the power to go after executive bonuses. 
2. United Kingdom: The Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) eliminates plausible deniability. This is an important example of how the world’s regulators view AML in modern times. SMCR means financial companies need to designate a specific senior executive who holds responsibility for overseeing AML. If the firm breaches AML rules, this executive can be held personally accountable unless they can prove they took “reasonable steps” to stop it.
3. Australia: The Financial Accountability Regime (FAR) and specific duties under the Corporations Act strictly hold directors and senior executives individually liable.
4. Singapore: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) enforces the Individual Accountability and Conduct (IAC) Guidelines. This framework demands that senior managers who oversee core functions are clearly identified and held to strict standards. 
5. Hong Kong: The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) utilises the Manager-In-Charge (MIC) Regime, similar to the UK and Singapore. Designated reporters must answer directly to the board and can be held personally and legally accountable by the SFC for any regulatory lapses within their department.

Many companies used to view AML fines as an inevitable “cost of doing business”. Moreover, they considered them perfectly manageable: “the firm will pay it, and it won’t be that much.”

Nowadays, the script has flipped. Targeting leaders individually means they don’t have the cultural protections they once enjoyed. Regulators aren’t afraid to go after governance failures when it comes to AML, and what’s more, they’re often eager to make examples. 

Ensuring you don’t become one of those examples means asking the right questions at the right time, never leaving red flags “till later,” and reporting anything suspicious to the right authorities. 

Whether you’re on a board or part of the executive, modern AML regulations will expect your cooperation and are willing to apply personal penalties if you don’t join their team.